DHARAM SINGH Vs. JAI PRAKASH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. A.N. Sinha, Advocate who has appeared for the respondent, Shri Jai Prakash Verma.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.7.2000 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur declaring the building No. 119/254-A (old), 119/526 (new), Darshanpurwa, Kanpur city, hereinafter referred to as 'the building in dispute', as vacant in exercise of power under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act NO. XIII of 1972), for short die Act.

(3.) In brief, the relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent Shri Jai Prakash Sharma, owner and landlord of the building in dispute, gave an intimation to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer that the building in dispute was vacant. On receipt of the said intimation, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer asked the Rent Control Inspector to make local inspection and submit a report. The building in question was accordingly inspected by the Rent Control Inspector who also submitted his report on 6.8.1999 to the effect that he building in question was in unauthorised and illegal occupation of the petitioner and in the eyes of law, the same was vacant. On receipt of the said report, notices were issued by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer to all concerned parties. The respondent Shri Jai Prakash Sharma filed his affidavit stating that originally, one Shri Kashi Ram who was an employee in the J.K. Cotton Mill, was in occupation of the building in dispute who vacated the same and illegally inducted Dharam Pal and his brother Nav Ratan in the building in dispute. The building in dispute was legally vacant. Petitioner also filed his objection contending that he was in occupation of the building in dispute since 1975. It was stated that he came in possession with the permission of Shri Tota Ram and Take Chand, who were employees in J.K. Cotton Mill. He was, thus, entitled to regularisation of his tenancy in view of provision of Sec. 14 of the Act. Parties, in support of their cases, produced evidence, oral (in the form of affidavits) and documentary. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer, after going through the entire evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in occupation of the building in contravention of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. The original tenant of the building in dispute was Shri Kashi Ram who left the same in the year 1990-91. He has removed his household goods/effects from the said building and illegally permitted the petitioner and his brother to occupy the same, who were not the members of his family. The building in dispute was, thus, deemed to be vacant under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 12 of the Act. Having recorded the said findings, the impugned order was passed, hence the present petition.